Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99
So, are you saying that Covid no longer represents a serious risk to the vulnerable e.g. immunocompromised, etc. ? If not, then surely mandating that an infectious person remain isolated is the only sensible & moral choice to make.
|
The question is more that if a person contracts covid what is the likelihood of serious illness (for example requiring hospital, ventilator or ICU treatment) or death, and how does this compare to other viruses including cold viruses, flu, norovirus etc if contracted. Also which viruses also mandate legal isolation for a time period or a testing condition and the proportion of their infections progressing to such a state.
Nobody is suggesting people with covid or any other virus should go round everywhere coughing over people and making everyone else ill. They are just removing the legal requirement for a positive test result (which doesn't even define that a person is infectious) to isolate.
Freedom from legal restriction should always be the case. If a legal restriction is applied, then it should be justified as to why it is necessary. These restrictions were temporary as we had no idea what the new virus was capable of and how we would manage it, the virus is now largely managed by not only the vaccines but also multiple options with antivirals which means that we are not only in a state where there is high immunity already but a much higher chance that people who do get ill will be treated. So does this justify having further restrictions? Why are legal restrictions necessary at this stage?